Law & Disorder —

Litigation between SCO and IBM to resume

The litigation between SCO and IBM, which was stayed by the courts during SCO' …

Litigation between IBM and disgraced UNIX vendor SCO is set to be reactivated, Groklaw reports. The lawsuits, which were subject to an automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy court, will now go forward and finally be brought to a close.

SCO is infamous for launching a misguided legal assault on the Linux operating system. The company claimed that IBM misappropriated code from UNIX and integrated it into the open source Linux kernel. SCO never managed to support this claim with evidence and the company's own internal code audits suggest that the allegation is baseless. The real roadblock that SCO faced, however, was the fact that they don't even own the UNIX copyrights.

The IBM litigation was put on hold pending the outcome of a dispute over the ownership of the System V UNIX copyrights between SCO and Novell, the rightful owner. The courts ruled in Novell's favor, finding that SCO did not obtain the copyrights in an asset purchase agreement that was made in the '90s. This effectively means that SCO doesn't have standing to sue IBM for allegedly infringing UNIX copyrights. SCO slid into bankruptcy and has never recovered.

The reactivation of the litigation between IBM and SCO is largely a procedural matter aimed at resolving the pending claims and counterclaims that the companies have brought against each other. Due to the court's previous conclusion that Novell is the rightful owner of UNIX, the reactivated litigation between SCO and IBM isn't going to be an opportunity for SCO to turn the tide in its favor.

IBM has a number of counterclaims against SCO that will finally be addressed by the courts. IBM is accusing SCO of breach of contract, violating the Lanham Act, engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices, and violating the GNU General Public License. IBM is also seeking a declaratory judgement which will affirm that IBM's AIX platform doesn't infringe on any of SCO's copyrights.

Due to the court's previous conclusion that Novell is the rightful owner of Linux, the reactivated litigation between SCO and IBM isn't going to be an opportunity for SCO to turn the tide in its favor.

Really that is what this is about (KIWF). IBM wants to get it's counterclaims in against SCO and crush it's corpse into dust. It also wants a clear and final judgment in IBMs favor to stop someone who buys the SCO "assets" in bankruptcy auction to try resurrecting this dead horse.

I do think there should be legal action brought against Darl McBride who started this whole mess. But he can probably argue stupidity instead of fraud.

Really that is what this is about (KIWF). IBM wants to get it's counterclaims in against SCO and crush it's corpse into dust. It also wants a clear and final judgment in IBMs favor to stop someone who buys the SCO "assets" in bankruptcy auction to try resurrecting this dead horse.

I do think there should be legal action brought against Darl McBride who started this whole mess. But he can probably argue stupidity instead of fraud.

I really think there should be laws against stupidity. And I don't mean negligence.

SCO still exists? How do they make money? Seriously, this is not a troll.

No, they don't. But the case still exists, so IBM want to get rid of it. If someone (for whatever reason) were to purchase out SCO, they could (for whatever reason) continue with the case. IBM want it gone.

Microsoft was an investor in the Canopy Group, which gave SCO a large infusion of money once the lawsuits started. The lawsuits (and especially SCO's contention that any Linux user owed them a $699/seat license) made big companies more reluctant to use Linux, at a time when Microsoft was taking forever to get Vista out the door.

Really that is what this is about (KIWF). IBM wants to get it's counterclaims in against SCO and crush it's corpse into dust. It also wants a clear and final judgment in IBMs favor to stop someone who buys the SCO "assets" in bankruptcy auction to try resurrecting this dead horse.

Amusingly, SCO actually tried to get the judge to approve the reopening of their claims against IBM, but not IBM's claims against SCO (source), so it is not just IBM that wants to see this case to completion.

Amusingly, SCO actually tried to get the judge to approve the reopening of their claims against IBM, but not IBM's claims against SCO (source), so it is not just IBM that wants to see this case to completion.

Well SCO literally has nothing to lose, so why not try ridiculous legal maneuvers. But the law firms will eventually want to cut their losses and stop representing SCO.

In the true spirit of scorched earth, I think IBM should also sue the city of Santa Cruz. After all, SCO used "Santa Cruz" in their name while not actually being located in Santa Cruz (they were in Scotts Valley) thereby implying support/approval of SCO. Ok, it's a huge stretch, but I've seen worse from the "Litigious States of America."

In the true spirit of scorched earth, I think IBM should also sue the city of Santa Cruz. After all, SCO used "Santa Cruz" in their name while not actually being located in Santa Cruz (they were in Scotts Valley) thereby implying support/approval of SCO. Ok, it's a huge stretch, but I've seen worse from the "Litigious States of America."

Back when I lived in Santa Cruz, SCO had their offices a few blocks away from Pacific Avenue.

In the true spirit of scorched earth, I think IBM should also sue the city of Santa Cruz. After all, SCO used "Santa Cruz" in their name while not actually being located in Santa Cruz (they were in Scotts Valley) thereby implying support/approval of SCO. Ok, it's a huge stretch, but I've seen worse from the "Litigious States of America."

Back when I lived in Santa Cruz, SCO had their offices a few blocks away from Pacific Avenue.

They probably moved then. Back when the whole mess started, I believe they were in Scotts Valley. They now appear to be in Utah.

Maybe they had to keep moving around to avoid being vandalized by irate Linux users?

In the true spirit of scorched earth, I think IBM should also sue the city of Santa Cruz. After all, SCO used "Santa Cruz" in their name while not actually being located in Santa Cruz (they were in Scotts Valley) thereby implying support/approval of SCO. Ok, it's a huge stretch, but I've seen worse from the "Litigious States of America."

Back when I lived in Santa Cruz, SCO had their offices a few blocks away from Pacific Avenue.

They probably moved then. Back when the whole mess started, I believe they were in Scotts Valley. They now appear to be in Utah.

Maybe they had to keep moving around to avoid being vandalized by irate Linux users?

SCO was founded in Santa Cruz.SCO was bought by Caldera, which was a spin-off of Novell, selling a Linux distribution. Caldera subsequently renamed itself to The SCO Group.So, what is SCO today has nothing to do with the old Santa Cruz Operation, except the acronym.

"SCO slid into bankruptcy and has never recovered."No. SCO invoked bankruptcy to keep Novel from getting the money that the court ruled was owed Novel after the court found that SCO was guilty of "conversion". Along with claiming they owned Unix, SCO was selling Novel's server software which per contract Novel was supposed to get 95% of the sale price (SCO was to keep 5%). SCO called the server software something else, sold it and kept all the money. The court ruled that SCO owed Novel somewhere between 1 and 3 million dollars. By hiding in bankruptcy, SCO was able to use that money to continue fighting and never let Novel have a dime of it.

Microsoft funded SCO directly and indirectly in its litigation against IBM and the GNU/Linux community.Microsoft paid SCO $16.6 million dollars for a UNIX license in 2003, and arranged a $50 million 'investment' in SCO from Baystar Capital.SCO chief Darl McBride was upfront about using Microsoft money in an attempt to shut down GNU/Linux. "A year ago we had $6 million. Now we have $60 million, with $50 million of that coming in through the investment. We have a war chest to defend our rights, to fight our claims in the courtroom," he said in 2004.Baystar Capital manager Larry Goldfarb confirmed this: "Microsoft obviously has an interest in this, and their interest is obviously in keeping their operating system on top."Presumably, since Microsoft's actions violated RICO and racketeering laws, the Justice Department will leap into action on behalf of the open source community (only kidding).

When someone who didn't own it tried to flog the Eiffel Tower this would have resulted in a jail term had he stayed in France long enough to be arrested. When someone who didn't own Linux tried to flog it (successfully in a couple of cases) he employed lawyers to support his equally ludicrous ownership claims to stay out of jail. Can someone educate me on the difference please ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig .